影响与独立：最高法院裁决中的政治因素
前总统比尔&克林顿（Bill
Clinton）及其提名的最高法院大法官候选人斯蒂芬&布雷耶（Stephen
Breyer）1994年在白宫。布雷耶是最高法院的自由派大法官之一。
本文收录于《美国最高法院：法律面前人人平等》一书。
作者：苏珊娜·谢里（Suzanna Sherry）
苏珊娜·谢里是位于田纳西州纳什维尔市（Nashville，Tennessee）的范德堡大学法学院（Vanderbilt
University Law School）的赫尔曼·勒文施泰因（Herman
O.Loewenstein）杰出法律教授。她与人合著了三部有关宪法和宪法理论的书：《决断时刻：宪法诉讼案中的政治和法律分离》（Judgment
Calls: Separating Law From Politics in Constitutional
Cases，2008）、《探根究底：对宪法基础的错误探求》（Desperately Seeking
Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional
Foundations，2002），以及《不可理喻：对美国法律真理的极端攻击》（Beyond All Reason:
The Radical Assault on Truth in American
Law，1997）。她还撰写了数十篇文章，并与人合著了三部教科书。
谢里承认，法官的政治观点会影响其裁决，但她认为这种担心被过于夸大，因为许多个人因素和体制性因素对裁决的影响大于法官的政治倾向。
在近两个世纪以前，深入研究美国生活和习俗的著名人士阿历克西·德·托克维尔（Alexis de
Tocqueville）写道：“在美国，几乎没有一个政治问题不在后来变成司法问题。”这句话现在仍然正确，并且其中反映的问题使美国法院面临独特的挑战。法官如何解决本质上是政治性而非法律的问题？其答案在于司法系统的结构和法官的决策过程。
与许多国家的情况不同，美国的法官来自普通律师，他们担任法官时无须经过专门培训。就连最高法院的大法官也是如此。他们虽然往往有在其他法院工作的经验，但除美国所有律师都必须接受的法律教育以外也不曾接受其他专门培训。法律专业的学生（包括未来的最高法院大法官）可能会侧重某些领域，如劳工法或反托拉斯法，但是没有任何课程着眼于他们日后可能从事的司法工作。
因此，最高法院的大法官在起步时都是律师。他们的个人背景、政治倾向以及诉求和理想具有多样性。从理论上而言，这种多样性和任何一个律师群体并无差别。最高法院中的多样性——特别是政治上的多元化——因大法官的选择过程而有所降低：每一位大法官都由总统任命，并且须经参议院以多数赞成票确认。一经任命，大法官将任职终身，直至其去世或者自愿退休。因此，大法官的职位很少出现空缺，而且无法预知，大法官的政治观点通常取决于他/她被任命时的总体政治环境。与一位享有民意支持而且其所属政党在参议院占多数席位的总统相比，一位处于弱势而且面临一个反对党占多数的参议院的总统作出的选择会有很大差别。
在任何时候，最高法院的大法官都是由不同的总统任命和不同的参议院确认。例如，在最高法院于2012年10月开始年度开庭期时，其九位大法官是由五位总统先后任命，其中三位总统是共和党人，两位总统是民主党人。最高法院中政治观点的多样性以及新任大法官的周期性任命可以保证任何政治派别的大法官都不会长期居于多数。
大法官之间虽然存在差别，但全都致力于维护宪法。他们坚定不移地追求这一目标，从而使美国成为一个法治国家，而不是人治国家。在解释和应用宪法及法律时，大法官们并不自视为治理一个不完美社会的柏拉图式的卫道士，而是法律的忠实代理人。最高法院能够并且确实对政治问题作出裁决，但它在这样做时使用的是与解决任何法律问题相同的法律手段。否则，最高法院就会危及自身的合法性：公众可能不会视之为特别值得尊重的机构。
个人观点和政治观点
然而，大法官们都有自己的个人观点。他们是通过政治程序被任命的。观察人士自然会问，大法官的政治观点在何种程度上影响其对案件的裁决？一些学者认为，大法官们的政治倾向影响巨大，基本上决定了他们对许多案件的裁决。他们指出，保守派总统任命的法官在投票时往往倾向于保守观点，而自由派总统任命的法官则与此相反。围绕最近的几次大法官提名展开的斗争无疑表明，许多人把大法官个人的政治观点看作影响其未来裁决的一个重大因素。
大法官威廉&布伦南（William Brennan）由共和党总统杜怀特&艾森豪威尔（Dwight
Eisenhower）任命，但后来成为二十世纪自由派倾向最强的大法官。
但是我们不应仓促得出结论，认为最高法院大法官像政治人物一样，只是试图按照自己的政治倾向制定政策。有一些因素使得这一分析复杂化。第一，要完全区分大法官的政治倾向与其司法理念是一件困难的事情。一些大法官认为，对宪法的解释应当基于最初制定时宪法具有的原意，或只应当按照字面意思来解释法律条款。另一些大法官则认为，宪法的含义可以随时间推移而发生变化，或与制定某一法律条款相关的文件可以在解释该法律时用作参考。
有些大法官极不愿意推翻已经由州或联邦立法机构制定的法律，而另一些大法官则把认真监督立法机构视为守护宪法的基本要素。在面对声称法律侵犯了个人的宪法权利的种种申诉时，认为必须根据宪法的原意解释宪法并且不愿意推翻已经确立的法律的大法官可能不会认同这种说法。如果这位法官恰好同时在政治上持保守立场，我们可能错误地将其不认同的态度归于政治原因，而不是司法理念。
大法官的个人经历和背景也可能影响其裁决案件的方式，但这种影响并非总是可以预知。一位出身贫寒的大法官可能会对穷人抱有同情心，也可能由于自己的奋斗经历而认为穷人应当对自己的处境负责。一位曾在公司或军队或政府机构（仅举数例）工作的法官可能会对这些部门的优劣之处有更深入的了解。
总之，要认定一位法官的政治倾向是影响其裁决的唯一（甚或主要的）因素似乎并不那么容易。一位法官做出的裁决使任命他/她的总统感到意外，与其本人的政治观点相反，或者支持属于另一个政党的总统任命的法官的意见，这样的例子不胜枚举。二十世纪最著名的两位自由派大法官，首席大法官厄尔·沃伦（Earl
Warren）和大法官威廉·布伦南（William Brennan）均是共和党总统杜怀特·艾森豪威尔（Dwight
Eisenhower）所任命。而且在沃伦的提名获得确认时参议院中共和党是多数党。最高法院的裁决中有四分之一到三分之一是全票通过的，即所有的大法官，无论其政治观点如何，都对最终结果持一致意见。一项研究得出的结论认为，在将近一半的非一致裁决中，大法官的投票与人们根据他们的个人政治观点所作的预期不符。此外，一些非常重要的法律问题并不像人们预期的那样具有政治性。例如，在涉及相互冲突的宪法权利或复杂的监管法令时，我们并非总是能够区分“保守派”或“自由派”立场。
司法裁决的其他因素
司法机构的结构和职能也对大法官出于个人政治倾向发挥影响起着制约作用。其中最重要的因素是，最高法院必须公开解释其裁决并说明理由：每一宗案件都伴有一项或多项意见书，说明作为裁决基础的推理，而且这些意见书必须提供给任何想要了解情况的人。意见书在媒体（和互联网上）被广泛讨论，并经常受到律师、法官和学者的仔细评判。这种透明度可以确保大法官们不会任意枉法断案。公众关注形成的压力使他们的裁量权受到制约。任何一位不愿被视为愚蠢或无赖的法官都会精心写出具有说服力的意见，以说明其判断的合理性。
研究和讨论案情也会减少政治在大法官裁决过程中的影响力。在作出裁决前，每一位大法官都要阅读各方当事人提供的案情摘要，在口头辩论中听取各方律师的陈词（并常常提问），并且与其他大法官交换意见。大法官们还可能会与他们的法律助理讨论案情。这些助理是刚从法学院毕业不久的学生，他们可能会提供一个不同的视角。在对案件作出初始投票后，大法官们相互交换意见书草稿。在这一长时间的审议期间，大法官们始终愿意听取不同意见，而一位大法官改变其对某一案件的意见并不足为奇。由于大法官、律师、各方当事人以及法官助理广泛代表了不同的政治观点，因此这一过程可以帮助大法官们侧重于法律而非政治因素。
最后，遵循先例原则（stare
decisis）——即遵守过去的判例——限制了最高法院的裁决权限。在没有特殊情况的前提下，最高法院会遵循先例——即它对过去案例的裁决。甚至连可能不赞成过去裁决的大法官（包括那些在当初裁决时表示异议的大法官）也几乎总会感到有义务将过去的判例应用于后来的案件。在某个具体议题上作出多次裁决后，最高法院可能会澄清或修改有关原则，但是过去的判例将被视作新的起点。历史上有许多新任总统誓言要改变最高法院的某些判例，但尽管任命了新的大法官仍未能如愿。遵循先例的原则确保原则的改变是渐进的，而不是突然的，已经牢固确立的裁决不大可能被推翻。因此，遵循先例原则而导致的逐渐演变有助于确保稳定和可预测性，而这二者在一个致力于法治的国家都是不可或缺的。
当然，世界上没有完美的制度。在少数案例中，对法官做出某一裁决的一种可能的解释似乎是他们自身的政治倾向。这些往往是最具争议并通常涉及政治纠纷的案例，而且在争议中美国民众以不同政治立场划分界限。因此，大法官在这些案例的裁决中出现同样的分歧也就不足为奇了。但是，这样的例子不应让我们得出结论说，政治是最高法院裁决中的主导因素。
总之，对大法官的裁决产生影响的因素很多。法官的政治观点只是起着很小的作用。否则，最高法院就不太能够充当制约政府中政治分支的独立角色，也不太能够保护个人权利，其合法地位就不会那么稳固。如果最高法院被看作不过是又一个政治实体，那么公众就不会对它有多少信心。大法官们（以及其他法官）了解这一点，因此他们通过在裁决时尽量减少政治因素而维护最高法院的声誉。
本文表达的见解不一定代表美国政府的观点或政策。
Read more:
Influence and Independence: Politics in Supreme Court
President Bill Clinton and his Supreme Court
nominee, Stephen Breyer, at the White House in Washington in 1994.
Breyer remains among the liberal Supreme Court judges.
This is part of the book , published by the State Department's Bureau of
International Information Programs.
By Suzanna Sherry
Suzanna Sherry is the Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law
at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee. She
has co-authored three books on constitutional law and
constitutional theory: Judgment Calls: Separating Law From
Politics in Constitutional Cases (2008), Desperately
Seeking Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional
Foundations (2002), and Beyond All Reason: The Radical
Assault on Truth in American Law (1997). She has also written
dozens of articles and co-authored three textbooks.
Sherry acknowledges fears that a given justice’s political
opinions shape his or her rulings. These fears, she concludes, are
greatly overstated. Many factors, both personal and institutional,
outweigh a justice’s political leanings in explaining his or her
decisions.
Almost two centuries ago, the famous student of American life
and customs Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “[T]here is hardly a
political question in the United States which does not sooner or
later turn into a judicial one.” That statement is still accurate
today, and it poses a unique dilemma for American courts. How can
judges resolve issues that, by their nature, are political rather
than legal? The answer lies in the structure of the judicial branch
and the decision-making process in which judges engage.
Unlike judges in many other countries, American judges are drawn
from the ranks of ordinary lawyers and installed on the bench
without any specialized training. Not even Supreme Court justices,
although they often have prior experience on other courts, receive
specialized training beyond the legal education of every lawyer in
the United States. And while individuals (including future Supreme
Court justices) studying to become lawyers may choose to emphasize
particular subject areas, such as employment law or antitrust law,
there are no courses that aim to prepare them for a judicial
Supreme Court justices, then, begin their careers as lawyers.
Their backgrounds, their political preferences, and their
intellectual inclinations are, in theory, as diverse as you might
find in any group of lawyers. This diversity on the Supreme Court —
especially political diversity — is somewhat narrowed by the
process through which justices are chosen: Each is nominated by the
president and must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate.
Once appointed, justices serve until they die
there are no fixed terms and no mandatory retirement. Vacancies on
the Supreme Court are thus sporadic and unpredictable, and the
political views of any particular justice will depend on the
political landscape at the time of his or her appointment. A
popular president whose party is in the majority in the Senate will
likely make very different choices than a weak president faced with
a Senate in which the opposing party has the majority.
At any particular time, the Court will consist of justices
appointed by different presidents and confirmed by different
Senates. As the Court began its term in October 2012, for example,
the nine sitting justices were appointed by five different
presidents — three Republicans and two Democrats. The diversity of
political views on the Court and the periodic appointment of new
justices guarantee that no single political faction will reliably
prevail for long.
Differences aside, all of the justices share a commitment to
uphold the Constitution. Their fidelity to that goal makes the
United States a country governed by the rule of law, rather than by
the rule of men. The justices, in interpreting and applying the
Constitution and laws, do not view themselves as Platonic guardians
seeking to govern an imperfect society but, instead, as faithful
agents of the law itself. The Supreme Court can, and does, decide
political questions, but does so using the same legal tools that it
uses for any legal question. If it were otherwise, the Court might
jeopardize its own legitimacy: The public might not regard it as an
institution particularly worthy of respect.
Personal and Political Views
Nevertheless, justices do have personal views. They are
appointed through a political process. Observers naturally must ask
how great a role their political views actually play. Some scholars
argue that the justices’ political preferences play a large role,
essentially dictating their decisions in many cases. They point to
the fact that justices appointed by conservative presidents tend to
vote in a conservative fashion and those appointed by liberal
presidents vote the opposite way. The confirmation battles over
recently nominated justices certainly suggest that many people view
the justices’ personal politics as an important factor in judicial
decision making.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower (left)
selected William J. Brennan for the Supreme Court. Brennan became
one of the most liberal justices of the 20th century.
But we should not so quickly conclude that Supreme Court justices,
like politicians, merely try to institute their own policy
preferences. A number of factors complicate the analysis. First, it
is difficult to disentangle a justice’s political preferences from
his or her judicial philosophy. Some justices believe that the
Constitution should be interpreted according to what it meant when
it was first adopted or that statutes should be interpreted by
looking only to their texts. Others believe that the Constitution’s
meaning can change over time or that documentary evidence
surrounding a statute’s enactment can be useful in its
interpretation.
Some justices are extremely reluctant to overturn laws enacted
by state or federal legislatures, and others view careful oversight
of the legislatures as an essential part of their role as guardians
of the Constitution. A justice who believes that the Constitution
ought to be interpreted according to its original meaning and who
is reluctant to strike down laws will probably be quite
unsympathetic to claims that various laws violate individuals’
constitutional rights. If that justice also happens to be
politically conservative, we might mistakenly attribute the lack of
sympathy to politics rather than judicial philosophy.
A justice’s personal experiences and background also may
influence how he or she approaches a case — although not always in
predictable ways. A judge who grew up poor may feel empathy for the
poor or may, instead, believe that his or her own ability to
overcome the hardships of poverty shows that the poor should bear
responsibility for their own situation. A justice with firsthand
experience with corporations or the military or government bodies
(to choose just a few examples) may have a deeper understanding of
both their strengths and their weaknesses.
In the end, it seems difficult to support the conclusion that a
justice’s politics are the sole (or even the primary) influence on
his or her decisions. There are simply too many instances in which
justices surprise their appointing presidents, vote contrary to
their own political views, or join with justices appointed by a
president of a different party. Two of the most famous liberal
justices of the 20th century, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice
William Brennan, were nominated by Republican President Dwight
Eisenhower — and Warren was confirmed by a Republican-majority
Senate. Between a quarter and a third of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court are all the justices, regardless
of their political views, agree on the outcome. One study has
concluded that in almost half of non-unanimous cases, the justices’
votes do not accord with what one would predict based on their
personal political views. Moreover, some deeply important legal
questions are not predictably political: We cannot always identify
the “conservative” or “liberal” position on cases involving, for
example, conflicting constitutional rights or complex regulatory
Other Factors in Decision Making
The structure and functioning of the judiciary also temper any
individual justice’s tendency toward imposing personal political
preferences. The most important factor is that the Court must
publicly explain and justify its decisions: Every case is
accompanied by one or more written opinions that provide the
reasoning behind the Court’s decision, and these opinions are
available to anyone who wants to read them. They are widely
discussed in the press (and on the Internet) and are often subject
to careful critique by lawyers, judges, and scholars. This
transparency ensures that justices cannot bend the law
their discretion is cabined by the pressures of
public exposure. And any justice who does not want to be thought a
fool or a knave will take care to craft persuasive opinions that
show the reasonableness of his or her conclusions.
Deliberation also plays a role in moderating the influence of
politics on justices’ decision-making. Before reaching a decision,
each justice reads the parties’ briefs, listens to (and often asks
questions of) the parties’ lawyers at oral argument, and converses
with other justices. The justices may also discuss cases with their
law clerks, recent law school graduates who may bring a somewhat
different perspective. After an initial vote on the case, the
justices exchange drafts of opinions. During this long deliberation
process, the justices remain open to persuasion, and it is not
unusual for a justice to change his or her mind about a case.
Because the justices, the lawyers, the parties, and the clerks
represent a diverse range of political views, this process helps to
focus the justices on legal, rather than political, factors.
Finally, the concept of stare decisis, or adherence to
the decisions made in prior cases, limits the range of the Court’s
discretion. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court
will follow precedent — the cases it has previously
decided. Even justices who might disagree with a precedent
(including those who dissented when the case was originally
decided) will almost always feel bound to apply it to later cases.
As decisions on a particular issue accumulate, the Court might
clarify or modify its doctrines, but the earlier precedents will
mark the starting point. History is full of examples of newly
elected presidents vowing to change particular precedents of the
Supreme Court, but failing despite the appointment of new justices.
Stare decisis ensures that doctrinal changes are likely to
be gradual rather than abrupt and that well-entrenched decisions
are unlikely to be overturned. This gradual evolution of doctrine,
in turn, fosters stability and predictability, both of which are
necessary in a nation committed to the rule of law.
No system is perfect, of course. In a small number of cases, one
likely explanation for particular justices’ votes seems to be their
own political preferences. These cases are often the most
controversial and usually involve political disputes that have
divided the country along political lines. It is no surprise that
they similarly divide the justices. The existence of such cases,
however, should not lead us to conclude that politics is a dominant
factor in most of the Court’s cases.
Many factors, therefore, influence the Supreme Court’s
decisions. The justices’ political views play only a small role.
Were it otherwise, the Court would be less able to serve as an
independent check on the political branches, less able to protect
the rights of individuals, and less secure in its legitimacy. The
public would not have as much confidence in a Court seen as just
another political body, rather than as an independent legal
decision maker. The justices (and other judges) know this, and they
safeguard the Court’s reputation by minimizing the role of politics
in their own decisions.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
Read more:
我的更多文章：
( 15:56:53)( 15:42:09)( 14:39:46)( 11:47:26)
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。